This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Kelly said anyone just looking at the dollar cost of the umbrellas, and the $530,000 spent on two large rocks from Quebec, is missing the point.

“It’s the photographs of Sugar Beach that count,” said Kelly, chair of council’s executive committee. “It’s those photographs that tourists take, it’s the photographs of that beach that go into brochures and websites.

“It’s all of that first-class investment that gets projected around the world and brands us, the city of Toronto, as world class and first class. And if you don’t understand that, I would argue that you don’t understand the world that we live in.”

Article Continued Below

The umbrellas, designed to last 25 to 30 years, were the major item cited by the Fords and Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong as evidence that Waterfront Toronto is out of control.

“It’s about time someone called these characters out,” Councillor Ford said during debate at council’s executive committee Wednesday. “It’s an absolute joke what’s going on over there.”

Set up in 2000, Waterfront Toronto had been funded with $1.5 billion from federal, provincial and city governments which has now been mostly spent on things like park development, flood protection and other infrastructure.

The agency now wants the ability to borrow money and is looking for funding of specific projects in future rather than lump sum funding from government, the committee was told.

The Fords also took aim at the waterfront renewal agency’s overhead, suggesting staffing is bloated and overpaid, with 69 employees costing $12.4 million — including 24 employees making $100,000 or more annually.

They also questioned the agency’s use of consulting contracts, which city officials indicated including 30 contracts valued at $50,000 to $249,000; 13 at $250,000 to $1 million; and three over $1 million.

Asked for his assessment, Toronto’s deputy city manager John Livey said Waterfront Toronto has received mostly positive audits. Livey, citing private real estate development under way or planned, said he believes the renewal project has been worthwhile.

Article Continued Below

“Is it achieving attractive use of the waterfront, saying we’re serious about attracting development and people to the area? I think the answer to that is yes,” Livey said.

Councillor Paula Fletcher accused the Fords of trying to turn Sugar Beach into an election issue they can use to their advantage but would harm waterfront renewal efforts.

“It’s a beautiful park,” Fletcher said of Sugar Beach. “Perhaps what you’d rather have is a few pieces of plastic play equipment down on the waterfront. I’m not comfortable with a second-rate waterfront.”

The executive committee voted to adopt staff recommendations that the city conduct a strategic review of the waterfront project by next summer.

The committee also adopted Minnan-Wong’s motion that Waterfront Toronto be requested to be more open with information about its operations and the city look at setting up an oversight body to more closely monitor the agencies activities.

More from The Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com